Comparison of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index between precoated and conventionally bonded orthodontic brackets
Background The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) at the enamel-bonding interface of precoated and conventionally bonded brackets, utilizing standardized procedures. Methods The test sample consisted of 90 recently extracted bovine permanent...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Progress in orthodontics 2013-10, Vol.14 (1), p.39-39, Article 39 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 39 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 39 |
| container_title | Progress in orthodontics |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Guzman, Ulises A Jerrold, Laurance Vig, Peter S Abdelkarim, Ahmad |
| description | Background
The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) at the enamel-bonding interface of precoated and conventionally bonded brackets, utilizing standardized procedures.
Methods
The test sample consisted of 90 recently extracted bovine permanent mandibular incisors. The teeth were bonded using the same protocol and were tested in three different situations. A material testing systems machine was utilized for debonding, and the remaining adhesive on the tooth was recorded.
Results
Immediately after bonding, we found that the shear bond strength of the precoated brackets (6.27 MPa) was significantly higher than that of conventional brackets (5.37 MPa) (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1186/2196-1042-14-39 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4384919</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3585911511</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b657t-ddf8a5fc813669f4aed11ff694d69a8a6bc99e27819aa20e56346804756e8023</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kkFv1DAQhSMEoqVw5oYsceESaieOE1-QYNVCpUq99G5N7MnGJbEX27vQA_8db7ddbSt6sj3v0_PT0xTFe0Y_M9aJ04pJUTLKq5LxspYviuP95OXB_ah4E-MNpayVnL4ujipeV42k_Lj4u_DzCoKN3hE_kDgiBNJ7Z0hMAd0yjQTyA8yI0W6QBJwduESsM_iH9Jh-IzqyCqg9JDR3sPZugy5Z72Cabu_csuJDGr3xea5JH0D_xBTfFq8GmCK-uz9Piuvzs-vFj_Ly6vvF4utl2YumTaUxQwfNoDtWCyEHDmgYGwYhuRESOhC9lhKrtmMSoKLYiJqLjvK2EdjRqj4pvuxsV-t-RqNzuACTWgU7Q7hVHqx6rDg7qqXfKF53XDKZDb7tDHrrnzF4rGg_q237atu-YlzVW5NP9ymC_7XGmNRso8ZpAod-HTMlWlE3gjUZ_fgEvfHrkOvMlGgqyTljdaZOd5QOPsaAwz4Qo2q7Hv-J8OGwiD3_sA8ZoDsgZsktMRx8_IznP1BdyA8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1652944113</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index between precoated and conventionally bonded orthodontic brackets</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Guzman, Ulises A ; Jerrold, Laurance ; Vig, Peter S ; Abdelkarim, Ahmad</creator><creatorcontrib>Guzman, Ulises A ; Jerrold, Laurance ; Vig, Peter S ; Abdelkarim, Ahmad</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) at the enamel-bonding interface of precoated and conventionally bonded brackets, utilizing standardized procedures.
Methods
The test sample consisted of 90 recently extracted bovine permanent mandibular incisors. The teeth were bonded using the same protocol and were tested in three different situations. A material testing systems machine was utilized for debonding, and the remaining adhesive on the tooth was recorded.
Results
Immediately after bonding, we found that the shear bond strength of the precoated brackets (6.27 MPa) was significantly higher than that of conventional brackets (5.37 MPa) (
p
< 0.05). However, no significant differences in bond strength were found between the two bracket systems after 24 h of bonding or after thermocycling. The conventional brackets had higher ARI scores than the precoated bracket systems immediately after bonding and after 24 h.
Conclusions
Since there were no significant differences in the bonding strength after 24 h, the immediate bonding strength of the precoated brackets during the first day does not appear to be a major advantage over the conventional bracket systems. However, less adhesive on the tooth after debonding is an advantage of precoated brackets.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2196-1042</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1723-7785</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2196-1042</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/2196-1042-14-39</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24325904</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Acid Etching, Dental - methods ; Adhesiveness ; Animals ; Cattle ; Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry ; Dental Bonding - methods ; Dental Enamel - ultrastructure ; Dental Stress Analysis - instrumentation ; Dentistry ; Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives - instrumentation ; Materials Testing ; Medicine ; Orthodontic Appliance Design ; Orthodontic Brackets ; Phosphoric Acids - chemistry ; Resin Cements - chemistry ; Shear Strength ; Stress, Mechanical ; Surface Properties ; Temperature ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>Progress in orthodontics, 2013-10, Vol.14 (1), p.39-39, Article 39</ispartof><rights>Guzman et al.; licensee Springer. 2013. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</rights><rights>Italian Society of Orthodontics 2013</rights><rights>Guzman et al.; licensee Springer. 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b657t-ddf8a5fc813669f4aed11ff694d69a8a6bc99e27819aa20e56346804756e8023</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b657t-ddf8a5fc813669f4aed11ff694d69a8a6bc99e27819aa20e56346804756e8023</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4384919/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4384919/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27903,27904,53769,53771</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24325904$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Guzman, Ulises A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jerrold, Laurance</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vig, Peter S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelkarim, Ahmad</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index between precoated and conventionally bonded orthodontic brackets</title><title>Progress in orthodontics</title><addtitle>Prog Orthod</addtitle><addtitle>Prog Orthod</addtitle><description>Background
The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) at the enamel-bonding interface of precoated and conventionally bonded brackets, utilizing standardized procedures.
Methods
The test sample consisted of 90 recently extracted bovine permanent mandibular incisors. The teeth were bonded using the same protocol and were tested in three different situations. A material testing systems machine was utilized for debonding, and the remaining adhesive on the tooth was recorded.
Results
Immediately after bonding, we found that the shear bond strength of the precoated brackets (6.27 MPa) was significantly higher than that of conventional brackets (5.37 MPa) (
p
< 0.05). However, no significant differences in bond strength were found between the two bracket systems after 24 h of bonding or after thermocycling. The conventional brackets had higher ARI scores than the precoated bracket systems immediately after bonding and after 24 h.
Conclusions
Since there were no significant differences in the bonding strength after 24 h, the immediate bonding strength of the precoated brackets during the first day does not appear to be a major advantage over the conventional bracket systems. However, less adhesive on the tooth after debonding is an advantage of precoated brackets.</description><subject>Acid Etching, Dental - methods</subject><subject>Adhesiveness</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry</subject><subject>Dental Bonding - methods</subject><subject>Dental Enamel - ultrastructure</subject><subject>Dental Stress Analysis - instrumentation</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives - instrumentation</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Orthodontic Appliance Design</subject><subject>Orthodontic Brackets</subject><subject>Phosphoric Acids - chemistry</subject><subject>Resin Cements - chemistry</subject><subject>Shear Strength</subject><subject>Stress, Mechanical</subject><subject>Surface Properties</subject><subject>Temperature</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>2196-1042</issn><issn>1723-7785</issn><issn>2196-1042</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kkFv1DAQhSMEoqVw5oYsceESaieOE1-QYNVCpUq99G5N7MnGJbEX27vQA_8db7ddbSt6sj3v0_PT0xTFe0Y_M9aJ04pJUTLKq5LxspYviuP95OXB_ah4E-MNpayVnL4ujipeV42k_Lj4u_DzCoKN3hE_kDgiBNJ7Z0hMAd0yjQTyA8yI0W6QBJwduESsM_iH9Jh-IzqyCqg9JDR3sPZugy5Z72Cabu_csuJDGr3xea5JH0D_xBTfFq8GmCK-uz9Piuvzs-vFj_Ly6vvF4utl2YumTaUxQwfNoDtWCyEHDmgYGwYhuRESOhC9lhKrtmMSoKLYiJqLjvK2EdjRqj4pvuxsV-t-RqNzuACTWgU7Q7hVHqx6rDg7qqXfKF53XDKZDb7tDHrrnzF4rGg_q237atu-YlzVW5NP9ymC_7XGmNRso8ZpAod-HTMlWlE3gjUZ_fgEvfHrkOvMlGgqyTljdaZOd5QOPsaAwz4Qo2q7Hv-J8OGwiD3_sA8ZoDsgZsktMRx8_IznP1BdyA8</recordid><startdate>20131020</startdate><enddate>20131020</enddate><creator>Guzman, Ulises A</creator><creator>Jerrold, Laurance</creator><creator>Vig, Peter S</creator><creator>Abdelkarim, Ahmad</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131020</creationdate><title>Comparison of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index between precoated and conventionally bonded orthodontic brackets</title><author>Guzman, Ulises A ; Jerrold, Laurance ; Vig, Peter S ; Abdelkarim, Ahmad</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b657t-ddf8a5fc813669f4aed11ff694d69a8a6bc99e27819aa20e56346804756e8023</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Acid Etching, Dental - methods</topic><topic>Adhesiveness</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry</topic><topic>Dental Bonding - methods</topic><topic>Dental Enamel - ultrastructure</topic><topic>Dental Stress Analysis - instrumentation</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives - instrumentation</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Orthodontic Appliance Design</topic><topic>Orthodontic Brackets</topic><topic>Phosphoric Acids - chemistry</topic><topic>Resin Cements - chemistry</topic><topic>Shear Strength</topic><topic>Stress, Mechanical</topic><topic>Surface Properties</topic><topic>Temperature</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Guzman, Ulises A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jerrold, Laurance</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vig, Peter S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelkarim, Ahmad</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Progress in orthodontics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Guzman, Ulises A</au><au>Jerrold, Laurance</au><au>Vig, Peter S</au><au>Abdelkarim, Ahmad</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index between precoated and conventionally bonded orthodontic brackets</atitle><jtitle>Progress in orthodontics</jtitle><stitle>Prog Orthod</stitle><addtitle>Prog Orthod</addtitle><date>2013-10-20</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>39</spage><epage>39</epage><pages>39-39</pages><artnum>39</artnum><issn>2196-1042</issn><issn>1723-7785</issn><eissn>2196-1042</eissn><abstract>Background
The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) at the enamel-bonding interface of precoated and conventionally bonded brackets, utilizing standardized procedures.
Methods
The test sample consisted of 90 recently extracted bovine permanent mandibular incisors. The teeth were bonded using the same protocol and were tested in three different situations. A material testing systems machine was utilized for debonding, and the remaining adhesive on the tooth was recorded.
Results
Immediately after bonding, we found that the shear bond strength of the precoated brackets (6.27 MPa) was significantly higher than that of conventional brackets (5.37 MPa) (
p
< 0.05). However, no significant differences in bond strength were found between the two bracket systems after 24 h of bonding or after thermocycling. The conventional brackets had higher ARI scores than the precoated bracket systems immediately after bonding and after 24 h.
Conclusions
Since there were no significant differences in the bonding strength after 24 h, the immediate bonding strength of the precoated brackets during the first day does not appear to be a major advantage over the conventional bracket systems. However, less adhesive on the tooth after debonding is an advantage of precoated brackets.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>24325904</pmid><doi>10.1186/2196-1042-14-39</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2196-1042 |
| ispartof | Progress in orthodontics, 2013-10, Vol.14 (1), p.39-39, Article 39 |
| issn | 2196-1042 1723-7785 2196-1042 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4384919 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Acid Etching, Dental - methods Adhesiveness Animals Cattle Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry Dental Bonding - methods Dental Enamel - ultrastructure Dental Stress Analysis - instrumentation Dentistry Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives - instrumentation Materials Testing Medicine Orthodontic Appliance Design Orthodontic Brackets Phosphoric Acids - chemistry Resin Cements - chemistry Shear Strength Stress, Mechanical Surface Properties Temperature Time Factors |
| title | Comparison of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index between precoated and conventionally bonded orthodontic brackets |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T13%3A59%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20shear%20bond%20strength%20and%20adhesive%20remnant%20index%20between%20precoated%20and%20conventionally%20bonded%20orthodontic%20brackets&rft.jtitle=Progress%20in%20orthodontics&rft.au=Guzman,%20Ulises%20A&rft.date=2013-10-20&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=39&rft.epage=39&rft.pages=39-39&rft.artnum=39&rft.issn=2196-1042&rft.eissn=2196-1042&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/2196-1042-14-39&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E3585911511%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1652944113&rft_id=info:pmid/24325904&rfr_iscdi=true |